He should of told her to move forward so the next customers coffee wouldn't get cold waiting on the counter like it usually does, she dumped it in her own lap, the appeals Judge called it right, under the 20 grand she wanted, the rest was eaten by the lawyers fees, maybe they felt sorry for her and didn't charge her.... Lol, yeah right.

Your coffee is going to be even colder than you suggest, if it sits on the counter. Mcdonalds lost the case, paid damages and defense lawyer fees. And now they keep their coffee less than scalding hot, as they should.
A person shouldn't have to anticipate 3rd degree burns from spilled coffee.
I would anticipate a piece of glass to break if it fell on concrete and would count myself lucky if it didn't.

The iPhone has 2 primary glass surfaces. Gorilla glass or no, there's no guarantee it will survive 3 or 4 foot drops.

It's like a long-stemmed wine glass. It's reasonable to assume it will be full of wine and the holder of said glass will be imbibing. It is reasonable to expect a fair percentage of glasses to be dropped or knocked over.

The iPhone has 2 primary glass surfaces. Gorilla glass or no, there's no guarantee it will survive 3 or 4 foot drops.

It's like a long-stemmed wine glass. It's reasonable to assume it will be full of wine and the holder of said glass will be imbibing. It is reasonable to expect a fair percentage of glasses to be dropped or knocked over.

While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.

There ARE, believe it or not, people who believe company advertising when they buy their phones, and maybe this guy bought the phone thinking it would be durable. Sure, everybody at AI knows it's a glass phone and thus extremely fragile, but the marketing babble about helicopters, etc might make a lot of people thinking that it might be as durable as a Nintendo DS or PSP similar product (which can be dropped frequently and survive), or indeed an iPhone3.

Having said that, I think Americans are fools for allowing their legal system to be so basically retarded.

First of all, McDonald's never claimed their coffee was l20 times colder than normal coffee, or that their hot coffee would burn you 30 times less than the competing coffee, or that helicopter pilots drink it because it's safer or anything like that. Fresh coffee is hot and will burn you. That case was a pretty obvious example of how fucked up the american judicial system is...

Second, wine glass makers don't claim their glasses are 20 times more durable than plastic cups, or that you could build a train or helicopter out of them...

Commercial drip coffee brewers have a water temp of between 205-210 degrees F pre brew chamber and 190-195 degrees F post brew, this temperature has been proven historically to provide the best tasting brew. If you happen to get a cup that has been poured from a just brewed pot then 190 or so is what the temp will be. McDonald's doesn't tell the franchisee how hot to hold coffee at, the local board of health does and the rules vary by location. Of the locations/standards I have seen it appears that somewhere between 130-140 is the desired temp. This is for sanitation/safety purposes BTW. Note that new water heaters caution you about setting water temps above 120 to protect from scalding....this is how lawsuits happen.

I'd bet that the same people who are railing about greedy lawyers are the same ones who, in a different context would be shouting, "that's the way capitalism works, commie bastard!"

Like it or not, our civil law system, particularly tort law, is based on capitalism. The alternative workable system is one where the government more actively regulates and prosecutes companies for making faulty and dangerous products. Eliminating or limiting the ability of people to pursue damages not only isn't workable on its own, but it is a recipe for disaster in product quality and safety.

I'd bet that the same people who are railing about greedy lawyers are the same ones who, in a different context would be shouting, "that's the way capitalism works, commie bastard!"

Like it or not, our civil law system, particularly tort law, is based on capitalism. The alternative workable system is one where the government more actively regulates and prosecutes companies for making faulty and dangerous products. Eliminating or limiting the ability of people to pursue damages not only isn't workable on its own, but it is a recipe for disaster in product quality and safety.

Capitalism isn't capitalism without ethics. There will always be greedy bastards looking to work the system.

And, for the record, my iPhone 4 dropped about 7 feet from a shelf onto a hard tile floor and bounced around like a hockey puck. It's got a dent in the edge of the glass, but it works perfectly. I've also been carrying it without a case since August and it has a tiny hairline scratch here and there, but nothing noticeable. For as fragile as it looks, the iPhone 4 is a freaking tank.

Capitalism isn't capitalism without ethics. There will always be greedy bastards looking to work the system. ...

Capitalism isn't based on ethics, it's based on law, and the ability to enforce agreements through the law. If you tie the hands of one side in a transaction -- i.e., limit the ability of people to sue for damages -- you pervert capitalism into something that isn't capitalism.

However, I will agree with your second statement, and without reference to the current case under discussion, will point out that sometimes those "greedy bastards" aren't the consumers or the lawyers.

After taking an engineering law course, I think the coffee one was rather legitimate.

It wasn't a guy, it was an old lady traveling with her grandson. The car was parked and the lady tried to add cream to her coffee, but the cup slipped and and spilled on her. Her grandson immediately got out of the car and pulled her out and dropped her sweat pants to prevent any more burning, but by that time she already had 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her legs and crotch area.

McDonald's instructed their franchises to serve coffee at a higher than industry standard temperature knowing that it could cause 3rd degree burns in under 10 seconds, while (going from memory here) a 3 degree drop in temperature (it might of been higher, but it was definitely less than 10 degrees) would increase the required exposure time to about a minute. The reason they served coffee at a higher temperature was to save money on coffee beans. They had basically determined that it was cheaper to pay for the occasional lawsuit than to lower the temperature the coffee was served at. The lady was only suing for her medical bills, but was awarded much more because of the deplorable practices McDonald's was engaged in as a corporation.

There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits out there, like the iPhone one, but I'd have to say that the McDonald's coffee one wasn't one of them. Had McDonald's served coffee at the industry standard temperature, that lady would not have been burned nearly as severely. McDonald's knew the risks but corporate greed overruled the safety of its customers.

the woman was holding a cup of hot coffee between her legs in a car while trying to remove the lid.

that is hardly "normal use" of a coffee cup.

moreover, the temperature of McDonald's coffee was perfectly in line with the National Coffee Association's brew temp and service temp recommendations for "optimal" coffee. (195-205 brew temp, 180-185 serving temp) McDonald's machines tested at 185 F.

WTH is industrial standard temperature for coffee? I like my coffee colder, my wife warmer. When one is lazy and won't put the cup into the cupholder in the car when adding the cream and is holding it between the legs, then that person deserves being burned. Another candidate for a "moron of the century".

And btw I would never buy the coffee at fastfood place - it's disgusting garbage.

believe it or not, science dictates a specific temperature to best extract the flavor from ground coffee beans. that is found to be approx 195-205 F.

this is part of the reason coffee fanatics are very specific with their brewing - most home drip pots make shit coffee because of very poor temperature monitoring. my espresso machine though, has a thermostat, and the boiler keeps the brewing water @ 92 C (197-ish F) ...best consumed immediately.

when i brew "drip" i use a kitchen thermometer in my vacuum brew pot to keep the new water at 195-200 F, same deal as espresso.

while I do think the lawsuit is stupid, I also think building a mobile phone out of glass is quite stupid too. Maybe they did it with the intention of making the back a multi-touch surface too, which is fair enough but it's too vulnerable to breakage. They use plastic camera lenses, I'm sure they could do the same with the back.

no, buying one made out of glass is stupid if you don't like the idea of it being made out of glass.

I don't remember any advertisements that claimed the iPhone 4 to be more durable. Harder and stiffer glass, yes. Meaning it will scratch less and not break while in your pocket when you sit on it. But never rated to be dropped any distance.

All that will happen from this suit is the lawyers will get a bunch of money and there will be a warning in the manual about dropping your phone.

The idea that apple should give everyone their money back is insane. The glass is not 'defective' as stated in the claim. It just isn't indestructible. Same goes for a lot of electronics. You would be surprised how many laptop screens get broken too.

What I find so sad about this thread is the banal "Apple is perfect" meme that runs through it blindly. I dropped my iPhone 3G when getting into a taxi, it dropped about a foot but has a nasty scratch on the plastic back now. But nothing shattered because plastic absorbs shocks. If it had been 20 times harder, it would probably have shattered too. Hard things have no 'give' in them.

I'm waiting for Apple to bring out iPhone 5 (without a glass back) before upgrading because I have dropped every phone I ever bought and making a phone out of glass is just plain asking for trouble. But I won't sue anybody because of it though! Not buying a device where 1 in 7 break is good enough sense to me.

While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.

You're completely wrong.

First, the numbers don't show that it breaks twice as often as the iPhone 3. The numbers show twice as many incidents. There are many possible explanations:
- iPhone 4 customers are clumsier
- iPhone 4 is harder to hold on to
- iPhone 4 customers take less care of their phone
- iPhone 4 cases were not readily available for some of the survey period, making the phone slippier
- iPhone 4 customers are more likely to report their phone
- The difference falls within statistical error
- There is a flaw in Square Trade's methodology.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the iPhone 4 is any more likely to break than the iPhone 3GS when dropped.

Second, Apple advertises that the glass is 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic. That appears to be a true statement. So what's wrong with making true statements in your advertising? Is it Apple's fault that you're not bright enough to understand what it means?

Third, Apple never advertised that the phone was unbreakable.

Fourth, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence realizes that glass can break if dropped. I'm sorry that concept is over your head.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I don't know if he should be winning a lawsuit, but the iPone 4 design is terrible when it comes to durability. Apple does lead you to believe the glass is much stronger than it really is, but the truth is if it drops and hits a corner, your f*cked. WIth the older iPhones you had the silver bezel protecting the edges of the glass. This is why I replaced my iPhone 4's back with a beveled metal back. Can't tell you how many times it's saved my phone.

"20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."

If Apple actually claims this, then they are in trouble.

When high-speed trains and helicopters crash, their "ultradurable" glass breaks. Okay. granted, it's silly argument, but so is the lawsuit: Apple never specifically claimed that the iPhone 4 could survive a 3-foot fall onto a hard surface unscathed and fully functional.

First, the numbers don't show that it breaks twice as often as the iPhone 3. The numbers show twice as many incidents. There are many possible explanations:
- iPhone 4 customers are clumsier
- iPhone 4 is harder to hold on to
- iPhone 4 customers take less care of their phone
- iPhone 4 cases were not readily available for some of the survey period, making the phone slippier
- iPhone 4 customers are more likely to report their phone
- The difference falls within statistical error
- There is a flaw in Square Trade's methodology.
In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the iPhone 4 is any more likely to break than the iPhone 3GS when dropped.

Second, Apple advertises that the glass is 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic. That appears to be a true statement. So what's wrong with making true statements in your advertising? Is it Apple's fault that you're not bright enough to understand what it means?

Third, Apple never advertised that the phone was unbreakable.

Fourth, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence realizes that glass can break if dropped. I'm sorry that concept is over your head.

Usually bad to accept statistics from a company with a vested interest in scaring you into thinking your phone will break easily...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masterz1337

I don't know if he should be winning a lawsuit, but the iPone 4 design is terrible when it comes to durability. Apple does lead you to believe the glass is much stronger than it really is, but the truth is if it drops and hits a corner, your f*cked. WIth the older iPhones you had the silver bezel protecting the edges of the glass. This is why I replaced my iPhone 4's back with a beveled metal back. Can't tell you how many times it's saved my phone.

And you have seen an objective study from a company that does not sell warranties or repair phones that would suggest this is true?

In spite of the excessive hype around "antenna-gate" and now "glass-gate" do any of you think there is a single phone on the market with a customer satisfaction rating in the same universe?

I love the way that my iPhone looks without a case. But I noticed that quite often it would slip off of things that I set it on. I have a glass desk and apparently it isn't perfectly level. I put my iPhone in the middle of the desk turn around to do something and plop. It lands on the carpet. I have seen this same thing on many surfaces. So, now it's in a case.

I also had the unfortunate experience of dropping my iPhone on concrete. It was in a shirt pocket and I reached down to pick something up (yeah, that was stupid). The screen got one large horizontal crack. Luckily I have square trade insurance. But my point is, the thing is slippery and if it hits a hard enough surface at the right angle it will break.

The question is: Is this a design flaw? My understanding is that a device is flawed when it fails to perform as advertised under the conditions specified for its use. If a Toyota accelerates when driving normally and crashes, it's a defect. When I wrap my Corvette around a pole because I lost control driving 90 miles an hour it's user error. Dropping your iPhone (even if it happens to be slippery) constitutes using the device in a way it was not intended. The slipperiness is not an issue. Just like if I said "my Scion tipped over in a curve because it's shaped like a box, it must be a defect." No, it was designed for style and it is the users responsibility to use the product within the designed scenarios, or assume the risk for the consequences.

First of all, McDonald's never claimed their coffee was l20 times colder than normal coffee, or that their hot coffee would burn you 30 times less than the competing coffee, or that helicopter pilots drink it because it's safer or anything like that. Fresh coffee is hot and will burn you. That case was a pretty obvious example of how fucked up the american judicial system is...

Second, wine glass makers don't claim their glasses are 20 times more durable than plastic cups, or that you could build a train or helicopter out of them...

I'm no lawyer, but I think you can claim things that are true but still not subject yourself to lawsuits when someone spins the claims against you in acts of carelessness, neglect or misuse.

Interesting note for any Rolex owners. Reading their claims makes the watches sound indestructable. They certainly certify survivability in all their rigid tests. But people nick the sapphire faces and the watches break just wearing them in normal use. If these types of lawsuits had merit, Rolex would be in deep doo doo.

I'm no lawyer, but I think you can claim things that are true but still not subject yourself to lawsuits when someone spins the claims against you in acts of carelessness, neglect or misuse.

Interesting note for any Rolex owners. Reading their claims makes the watches sound indestructable. They certainly certify survivability in all their rigid tests. But people nick the sapphire faces and the watches break just wearing them in normal use. If these types of lawsuits had merit, Rolex would be in deep doo doo.

I think you are right, and this is counter to the specious claim that all someone needs to do in America is file a lawsuit and money comes pouring out the slot. The most likely outcome of a suit like this, if it's not dismissed outright, is Apple agreeing to extend iPhone warranties in some limited situations.

According to the SCAA, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F) for 90% of the contact time.

SCAA is the Specialty Coffee Association of America. The original poster sounds like a member of the SCAA as his comments are almost verbatim from their brewing handbook. BTW, I am also a member.

Well, he wrote, for example,

Quote:

Commercial drip coffee brewers have a water temp of between 205-210 degrees F pre brew chamber

Which is above 197.6 - 204.8F. It actually might be the case that some commercial brewers have the water hitting the grounds at 210F, but that coffee is going to be extremely bitter and unpalatable, sort of like the coffee from McDonald's.

While I agree that dude's a retard, and americans sue each other too much, it is irresponsible of Apple to advertise the iPhone4 as being ""20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," considering the numbers show it breaks twice as often as the iPhone3.
.

But did they ever say that it would never ever break if dropped, or would never ever scratch.

If Apple blatantly said those things then it is false advertising. And someone would have laid that charge with the very first incident which would have been on the Fourth of July (drunk guy at a barbecue) if not sooner

So you upgrade your cell phone for a couple hundred dollars and decide that your clumsiness, (or that of your daughter) is a design flaw in one of the most advanced gadgets in use today. Did he try to scratch the screen with a nail too? I'm sure treating a fragile piece of technology like a toddler's plaything is grossly overlooked when designing new and more capable mobile devices today.

I hope he doesn't spill hot coffee on himself and decide to sue for that act of clumsiness as well.

Which is above 197.6 - 204.8F. It actually might be the case that some commercial brewers have the water hitting the grounds at 210F, but that coffee is going to be extremely bitter and unpalatable, sort of like the coffee from McDonald's.

That is why he explained the post brew chamber temps. Large commercial brewers are using pounds of coffee per brew. The ground coffee is at room temperature so as soon as the water hits the coffee it drops several degrees because it is slowly spraying into the chamber.

I feel like this is the heart of the lawsuit, and I certainly understand why one would file it.

The phone is a highly portable device, meant to be moved around. Because this motion is so prevalent, it stands to reason that there's a decent chance at some point, it will get dropped. Some drops are mundane, some are catastrophic, all based on the luck of gravity.

The phone is a fairly expensive piece of equipment. So, while a dropped wineglass results in maybe 3/4 dollars out of pocket ... this could be over $500.

I guess one would expect that the phone be able to sustain a couple foot drop and not sustain horribly catastrophic damage, because dropping it has to be considered a reasonable event. I've dropped my phone a number of times, on cement, and it's still pretty much ok. The case it's in maybe not so much. So it's unfortunate for him if he hasn't put it in a case. It's a reasonable extension (but one could argue that you shouldn't advertise a phone costing $200 that destroys itself when you drop it, you should advertise a $220 phone (+ $20 for the case), that survives reasonable drops.

For me, I feel the same way about their laptops. I've owned three powerbook/MBPs made in the metal case and I've also owned three powerbook/MBPs that have sustained pretty substantial damage in areas around ports (twice around the charger port). The last time, I dropped my laptop off my shoulder onto a carpeted floor, in a laptop case, when the laptop was in a hard plastic case. and that really damaged the monitor out port. And I guess that's just a little surprising. That's a fair amount of protection to still result in that kind of damage.

I think sometimes what I wish is that for things like iphones and laptops, there be some effort to help them survive a reasonable drop. Similar to how cars work under 2.5 mphs. It'd be pretty challenging to make a car survive a 60 mph head on collision, but backing up for parallel parking shouldn't result in a mangled bumper or a flat out ruined car. I feel like the same thing could be said for laptops/phones.

That is why he explained the post brew chamber temps. Large commercial brewers are using pounds of coffee per brew. The ground coffee is at room temperature so as soon as the water hits the coffee it drops several degrees because it is slowly spraying into the chamber.

210F is simply way too hot for any method of brewing or type of brewer, and it's also way beyond the SCAA's recommendations. (Which are a little misleading, anyway, since they don't account for differences inherent in brewing methods. For example, most people prefer to use a water temperature considerably below the SCAA's recommendations when using an AeroPress.)

Well, I will say that I was attracted by the "super strong" glass when I bought the iPhone 4 -- my first smartphone -- but within a week I had scratched the front by putting it in my pocket with my keys. Now I treat it like "regular" glass and haven't had any problems.

I was also attracted by the "10 hour" battery life in my new MacBook Pro, but quickly realized it had approximately the same battery life as the previous model.

If I had bought these items specifically for those claimed features, I would be more upset, but for me they would have been nice bonuses. So I'm just reminded to take those marketing claims with a grain of salt.